YouGov election estimates

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:11 am

"Hung parliament would be great btw, because we might finally get some sort of government by national consensus, rather than left or right policies rigidly enforced."

Absolute rubbish.On this occasion we would get the most left wing government ever seen in the uk, with a commy PM backed up by a left wing SNP leader. The approximate 40% right vote would have no representation. Scotland would get a vote on leaving as part of a deal, which could wreck whatever was left of the economy.

We would be taken to the cleaners by the EU and be lucky to get as good a deal as we already have.We would be at the mercy of Putin or anyone else that threatened us. We would be disowned by the USA, who would say you deserve what you get.

As happened 40 years ago, the brightest and best would either emigrate to avoid high tax or stop striving as much. Business will find ways to minimise profits to avoid high corp. tax and/or sit on cash and not pay dividends.

Shares would plunge ( this time it would be reality not Cameron/Osbourne ballocks), thereby putting ordinary peoples pensions at risk.

McClusky would be the PM in all but name.

A pointless inquiry would be made into Orgreave to revenge the peoples victory over Scargill and our soldiers from NI would be prosucuted.

More and more money would be thrown at everything as unemployment returned.

The Tories are unpopular because they always they have to cut to solve Labour's money tree mentality.

1968claret · Post by **1968claret** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:16 am

summitclaret wrote:"Hung parliament would be great btw, because we might finally get some sort of government by national consensus, rather than left or right policies rigidly enforced."

Absolute rubbish.On this occasion we would get the most left wing government ever seen in the uk, with a commy PM backed up by a left wing SNP leader. The approximate 40% right vote would have no representation. Scotland would get a vote on leaving as part of a deal, which could wreck whatever was left of the economy.

We would be taken to the cleaners by the EU and be lucky to get as good a deal as we already have.We would be at the mercy of Putin or anyone else that threatened us. We would be disowned by the USA, who would say you deserve what you get.

As happened 40 years ago, the brightest and best would either emigrate to avoid high tax or stop striving as much. Business will find ways to minimise profits to avoid high corp. tax and/or sit on cash and not pay dividends.

Shares would plunge ( this time it would be reality not Cameron/Osbourne ballocks), thereby putting ordinary peoples pensions at risk.

McClusky would be the PM in all but name.

A pointless inquiry would be made into Orgreave to revenge the peoples victory over Scargill and our soldiers from NI would be prosucuted.

More and more money would be thrown at everything as unemployment returned.

The Tories are unpopular because they always they have to cut to solve Labour's money tree mentality.

So it's true. There really are people out there who believe everything the Daily Mail writes

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:19 am

The approximate 40% right vote would have no representation

Yup, just like the 48% don't have representation for Brexit, something you are completely fine with.

Suck it up and deal with it (if it happens)

EDIT - and what was said above, that is pure Daily Mail. Well done!

Dom · Post by **Dom** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:38 am

Tories will likely win but it won't be a massive majority, she's lucky that they were so far ahead to begin with and Corbyn is the opposition, otherwise they'd be buried.

WadingInDeeper · Post by **WadingInDeeper** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:42 am

summitclaret wrote: As happened 40 years ago, the brightest and best would either emigrate to avoid high tax or stop striving as much. Business will find ways to minimise profits to avoid high corp. tax and/or sit on cash and not pay dividends.

Unlike the past few years where people have been emigrating for better wages and living conditions, and companies have been finding ways to avoid paying corporation tax.

taio · Post by **taio** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:44 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Yup, just like the 48% don't have representation for Brexit, something you are completely fine with.

Suck it up and deal with it (if it happens)

Just like you've done with Brexit, or not given you've probably posted about it more than anyone else

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 9:03 am

It is not the same as Brexit. The latter was a single issue question. People did not vote tactically - nothing lke a GE.

I don't read the Daily Mail btw or any other such papers. I have life experience and am quite capable of thinking for myself. I know what life was like when the Unions tried to run this country. Make no mistake that will happen again if JC gets to be PM.

Generally, I'd be perfectly happy with a coalition of middle ground Tory/Labour.I can't stand the far left and have no time for the far right. I don't want to go back to a failed system (socialism). However, I do want a country that looks after those that need looking after (not those that just want to be) and that encourages hard work at school and at work, where everyone can thrive through their own efforts and with the support of their parents/guardians/peers.

We absolutely must make a success of Brexit and the only way we can do that is to give the tories a big enough majority (say 50) to have a strong hand with the EU and in Parliament. Do I think TM wil be a great PM? No but she is the only viable option at the moment. JC would be the worst one we have ever had, by a very long way.

SammyBoy · Post by **SammyBoy** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 9:07 am

summitclaret wrote:"Hung parliament would be great btw, because we might finally get some sort of government by national consensus, rather than left or right policies rigidly enforced."

Absolute rubbish.On this occasion we would get the most left wing government ever seen in the uk, with a commy PM backed up by a left wing SNP leader. The approximate 40% right vote would have no representation. Scotland would get a vote on leaving as part of a deal, which could wreck whatever was left of the economy.

We would be taken to the cleaners by the EU and be lucky to get as good a deal as we already have.We would be at the mercy of Putin or anyone else that threatened us. We would be disowned by the USA, who would say you deserve what you get.

As happened 40 years ago, the brightest and best would either emigrate to avoid high tax or stop striving as much. Business will find ways to minimise profits to avoid high corp. tax and/or sit on cash and not pay dividends.

Shares would plunge ( this time it would be reality not Cameron/Osbourne ballocks), thereby putting ordinary peoples pensions at risk.

McClusky would be the PM in all but name.

A pointless inquiry would be made into Orgreave to revenge the peoples victory over Scargill and our soldiers from NI would be prosucuted.

More and more money would be thrown at everything as unemployment returned.

The Tories are unpopular because they always they have to cut to solve Labour's money tree mentality.

This is the most paranoid rant I've heard all year.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 9:32 am

Just like you've done with Brexit, or not given you've probably posted about it more than anyone else

not denying it Taio!

But Sumit doesn't like the fact that he might not have any representation, and he's fine with it when I don't have any, but not when he doesn't.

Thats the point.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 9:33 am

Sorry, Summit if you don't read the Daily Mail then you are at least a sub-editor on it!

1968claret · Post by **1968claret** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 9:33 am

summitclaret wrote:It is not the same as Brexit. The latter was a single issue question. People did not vote tactically - nothing lke a GE.

I don't read the Daily Mail btw or any other such papers. I have life experience and am quite capable of thinking for myself. I know what life was like when the Unions tried to run this country. Make no mistake that will happen again if JC gets to be PM.

Generally, I'd be perfectly happy with a coalition of middle ground Tory/Labour.I can't stand the far left and have no time for the far right. I don't want to go back to a failed system (socialism). However, I do want a country that looks after those that need looking after (not those that just want to be) and that encourages hard work at school and at work, where everyone can thrive through their own efforts and with the support of their parents/guardians/peers.

We absolutely must make a success of Brexit and the only way we can do that is to give the tories a big enough majority (say 50) to have a strong hand with the EU and in Parliament. Do I think TM wil be a great PM? No but she is the only viable option at the moment. JC would be the worst one we have ever had, by a very long way.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on that. I too have the life experiences of living through the strong unions of the 70s and the last few years of a Tory government. Neither have been good. However if you want a society that helps those that need help, I wouldn't go looking to the Tories for this. I, like many others probably including yourself has seen my wages reduce, taxes and contributions rise over the last few years.
I don't see that as a massive problem if I could see that the extra money I am paying in was going to help our society as a whole. But it hasn't! So where has it gone, who has it helped?
That is why I just can't vote for May and her privileged, out of touch, cohorts.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 9:35 am

We absolutely must make a success of Brexit and the only way we can do that is to give the tories a big enough majority (say 50) to have a strong hand with the EU and in Parliament.

Makes no difference whatsoever. You want to make sure Brexit goes ahead and you think that the best bet for that is May and her conservatives.

Thats fine, but just say that rather than bullshit arguments that are meaningless.

Yours

someone who is sick of bullshit arguments

Hipper · Post by **Hipper** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 9:46 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:May has been terrible, but Corbyn has been very good, in fact all the opposition leaders have come across a lot better than May has.

Calling an election gave everybody a platform to have a go, and the only one who has almost chucked it in is May.

Still see them winning, but they have given other parties a chance, and maybe a decent opposition is back (which is a good thing)

Hung parliament would be great btw, because we might finally get some sort of government by national consensus, rather than left or right policies rigidly enforced.

This is presumably mostly based on television appearances?

It begs the question that concerns me: does it mean that someone who gives a polished, convincing television performance has the capability to be a good politician?

I don't know the answer but I would have thought that there are much more important qualities that are needed.

If that's true then someone winning an election based on television performances may not necessarily be the best Prime Minister. And that. I feel, is the way we are going wrong.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 9:55 am

Rowls wrote:So the Conservative Lib Dem coalition made cuts that were "too far, too fast" but also didn't cut enough? Meaning that we are STILL not yet on top of Gordon Brown's spending binge on welfare for middle class people.

So the Conservatives still spent less and borrowed less than Miliband's Labour but they should have made even deeper cuts to spending? And yet we are STILL not yet on top of Gordon Brown's spending binge

... and having failed to get the deficit and the debt under control in nearly 9 year the answer now is to borrow even more and spend EVEN more under Jeremy Corbyn?

Hilarious "logic".

Obviously the question goes deeper than merely how much you cut, because if you fail to collect enough taxes in the first place you won't make ground on your deficit target. It doesn't help either if you sell off state assets that actually earn money (Royal Mail, East Coast Mainline, etc etc), especially when you sell them off cheap to your friends and best man at your wedding.

But the worst thing the Tories have done with their cuts that have saved no money is slash front line services that cause hardship to people now, and shunt the costs down the road where they'll be more expensive. You say hilarious logic, but we all see a government that has cut our services and massively increased our debt all at the same time.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 9:58 am

Its based on more than that Hipper.

How many U-turns?

Constant attacks on other parties policies while ignoring or changing their own?

They didn't even cost their own manifesto, and seemed genuinely surprised that that was used against them.

Will Corbyn make a good PM? Probably not

Is May a good PM? No

The difference here is that May has had her chance, and is tossing it in. Corbyn hasn't, and maybe we need a completely different way of looking at things.

Lot to think about anyway.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:05 am

CleggHall · Post by **CleggHall** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:14 am

The really dangerous politicians are those that can deliver a polished convincing performance despite not believing a word they say. Thankfully, they are quite rare.

Agreed but not so rare, think Blair, Cameron and other PR merchants, they are very dangerous and the electorate seems to fall for their spin, weasel words and sales talk.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:19 am

Back to the polling, labours own internal polling says they will only win 180 seats. That's tory landslide territory.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:20 am

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:21 am

claretdom · Post by **claretdom** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:21 am

"Lib Dems are at 10 seats"

They make cars with more seats

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:44 am

claretandy wrote:Back to the polling, labours own internal polling says they will only win 180 seats. That's tory landslide territory.

I've always wondered how internal polling differs from other methods of polling when they'll no doubt compare both.

btw, where did you get the 180 figure from?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:46 am

Its on twitter from a journalist, using Lab internal sources.

He might have a point, no point in Lab winning massively in say Sunderland South if they lose narrowly in Chester for example.

If the swing seats don't vote for them, then the landslide is still on

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:47 am

Spijed wrote:I've always wondered how internal polling differs from other methods of polling when they'll no doubt compare both.

btw, where did you get the 180 figure from?

Kevin schofield, politics home editor on twitter.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:51 am

Apparently no polling has been done in the 100 marginals that settles an election. Unbelievable Jeff !

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:58 am

claretandy wrote:Apparently no polling has been done in the 100 marginals that settles an election. Unbelievable Jeff !

There seems to be a big disparity in internal and the external polls for both sides. Wonder why they should differ?

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 11:07 am

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 11:10 am

Internal polling is on the doorstep , in constituences, polling companies speak to random people (about a 1000) then try and extrapulate that to the rest of the country.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 11:10 am

Has Theresa May's campaign been all that bad, or are we seeing the natural consequence of a party that looks after 1% of the population fighting one that looks after everyone? The Tories have a lot of money, and the power of the press behind them. Outside of an election period this has kept them on top - maintaining a vigorous attack on the leader of the opposition - but during an actual election, when the press is forced to report the actual words of the opposition, and the voting public are shown the contrast, then the constant propaganda doesn't work as well.

People are looking at a choice between five more years of austerity and five years of something a lot more positive, so it's unsurprising that quite a few will shift toward what they have been told for the last few years is incompetent and unelectable.

When voters explain why they won't vote Labour, most give reasons that echo the constant media barrage they've been under - Corbyn is too weak / extreme left / soft on terror / etc. Many like the manifesto but won't vote Labour because of him, and considering few have actually heard the man speak this can mostly be put down to the press onslaught. Nonetheless some people have looked beyond the narrow press focus of 'could he channel his inner psychopath in the highly unlikely event of something happening that has never happened before?'

May thought she had a free pass with this (why else would you call an election with an uncosted manifesto?), but it shouldn't come as a big surprise that parties offering something to the bottom 50% get some traction.

What have the Tories to offer to the non-rich? There's nothing but pain and trifling things in their manifesto. Nothing positive to shout about, hence their project fear over Corbyn. Can we really blame her for not debating him or speaking with real people? If she's thrown under a bus after this election it will be about a failure of marketing and image than anything political.

In the last few weeks the Tories have received twice the donations of all the other parties combined, and from far fewer donors. The rich are panicking at losing control. The Tories are the party of the rich. May has actually done a great job of trying to fool people into thinking she cares about working people but there is nothing in their manifesto to back this up. The surge in Labour support has nothing to do with her ability, but people looking to their own best interests.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 11:14 am

claretandy wrote:Internal polling is on the doorstep , in constituences, polling companies speak to random people (about a 1000) then try and extrapulate that to the rest of the country.

That's the strange thing about the Labour estimate of seats. Going door to door tends to lead to the "shy Tory" effect, thus leading to artificially more positive results for Labour. I'm surprised either party still canvasses opinion this way after the 2015 results and the opinion poll inaccuracies.

Edit: I would have thought that people would be far more open in their answers doing an online poll than face-to-face.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 11:22 am

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 11:27 am

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 11:40 am

Those that give you 1 minute, though, nearly always change their perception when you tell them exactly what it is Labour are offering (and who will be paying for it!).

I seriously doubt that even Momentum believe that they can change the minds like that, and for good as well.

That would only work if you grabbed them just before they voted, which wouldn't be ideal under any circumstances.

I'm sure (sadly) that the "shy tory" vote will still be the decisive factor.

jlup1980 · Post by **jlup1980** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 11:47 am

AndrewJB wrote: In the last few weeks the Tories have received twice the donations of all the other parties combined, and from far fewer donors. The rich are panicking at losing control. The Tories are the party of the rich. May has actually done a great job of trying to fool people into thinking she cares about working people but there is nothing in their manifesto to back this up. The surge in Labour support has nothing to do with her ability, but people looking to their own best interests.

Spot on. How anyone on a normal wage, living a normal life, can even consider voting Tory is beyond me. The past couple of months has shown them to be the nasty inward thinking bunch of rich kids they are.

Politics in this country is surely at it's lowest point ever? Bickering parties, a blame culture and an entire generation that are so disillusioned with the way things are that they probably won't even vote. And who can blame them. This is the first generation who will make less money than the generations before them. Our children are blindly walking into a Tory haven of debt, unless you have a rich Mummy and Daddy of course... keep the rich rich and the poor poor Theresa, there's a good girl.

On the opposite side we have the older generation Tories who have benefitted from free education, earned their money, made even more from property booms and pocketed the lot. It's like a Thatcher wet dream and they won't share the spoils. Look after number one, forget about the rest.

In a very Kevin Keegan way I would LOVE IT if Labour beat them, LOVE IT!

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 12:12 pm

THEWELLERNUT70 · Post by **THEWELLERNUT70** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 12:35 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Its based on more than that Hipper.

How many U-turns?

Constant attacks on other parties policies while ignoring or changing their own?

They didn't even cost their own manifesto, and seemed genuinely surprised that that was used against them.

Will Corbyn make a good PM? Probably not

Is May a good PM? No

The difference here is that May has had her chance, and is tossing it in. Corbyn hasn't, and maybe we need a completely different way of looking at things.

Lot to think about anyway.

It's the "wait and see" politics that I find most alarming. A tell 'em nowt mentality if you like.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 12:37 pm

I would think as well that on the doorstep it's a case of persuading people to actually vote.

Caballo · Post by **Caballo** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 12:40 pm

Or them telling you what you want to hear so you'll leave.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 12:42 pm

claretandy wrote:Back to the polling, labours own internal polling says they will only win 180 seats. That's tory landslide territory.

That may be totally accurate, but on the other hand an internal Labour poll isn't independent is it?
If I were involved in this I'd be trying to suggest the worst possible outcome in order to try to get the Labour vote out, (especially young people).
There are a lot of people who don't want a Labour victory, but actually don't want to see a large Tory majority either - in fact they would like to see TM just edge over the line.
If Labour claim they are doing really well, then there is a possibility that many "vaguely undecided" will rally to the Tories, but if Labour are able to convince people that it's a "damage limitation" exercise, then there could be an element of Tory complacency, and a better Labour turnout.
It could be - for example - that they've factored in a margin of error of say 5% to account for turnout, and that in every case where it falls within that 5% they have marked it down as a potential loss. (That could be the case in quite a large number of seats).
It's only a possible theory, but it is interesting that the Labour's own poll is significantly more pessimistic than all the others.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 1:04 pm

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 1:35 pm

If you actually look at some of the constituency breakdowns of this rogue yougov poll , it has some of the safest tory seats going labour, I. E it's wrong and won't happen.

https://yougov.co.uk/uk-general-election-2017/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

timshorts · Post by **timshorts** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 1:36 pm

summitclaret wrote:The Tories are unpopular because they always they have to cut to solve Labour's money tree mentality.

I happened to be driving through Amber Rudd's constituency a couple of weeks ago, and could have sworn that I passed one of her "money tree orchards" in Icklesham. Oddly it used to have blackcurrants there, but I guess that's down to crop rotation rather than Brexit.

The "money tree" really does exist. It's a perfectly ordinary looking tree, similar to an apple tree, but sitting up instead of fruit are a lot of high income/high capital companies and individuals who look plump and possibly over-ripe. These things are surrounded by electric fences, so that only a very small proportion of the fruit ever gets removed.

I suspect that Mr. Corbyn has based his manifesto on giving the money trees a blo0dy good shake and harvesting a rather fairer proportion of the fruit.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 1:54 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:How many U-turns?

Nobody has made more u-turns than Corbyn.
That's not to say he won't go back to his original stance on things like anti terrorism measures and scrapping MI5 if he does become prime minister

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 2:05 pm

claretandy wrote:If you actually look at some of the constituency breakdowns of this rogue yougov poll , it has some of the safest tory seats going labour, I. E it's wrong and won't happen.

https://yougov.co.uk/uk-general-election-2017/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Very interesting - if you have time to go through the various constituencies.
I think there may well be some surprises - (surprise losses for both major parties I mean), but I really can't imagine Amber Rudd losing Hastings, as is predicted in this poll. If she does, she'll know who to blame. I thought she put up a gallant fight for her absentee "leader" last week.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 2:12 pm

claretandy wrote:If you actually look at some of the constituency breakdowns of this rogue yougov poll , it has some of the safest tory seats going labour, I. E it's wrong and won't happen.

https://yougov.co.uk/uk-general-election-2017/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's into a rogue poll, it's not a poll. But which safe Tory seats are you referring to?

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 3:29 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:It's into a rogue poll, it's not a poll. But which safe Tory seats are you referring to?

Hastings has been mentioned , Canterbury too, there are others too.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 4:13 pm

Hastings is considered a marginal Tory seat and is only leaning Labour according to the model. And Canterbury is showing as a tossup.

And that's fine. There's nothing there to prove the model is wrong. It's not intended to predict every single constituency accurately. With a 95% confidence interval there are expected to be about 5% that fall ourside this range. That's over 30 constituencies. This isn't unusual. But if you cherry pick anomolous looking results and declare the model wrong based on those then you're never going to learned anything from any statistical model on any topic ever.

Top Claret · Post by **Top Claret** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 4:46 pm

God help us if labour gain control. High taxation will rid our shores of investment and create mass unemployment. The benefit culture will once again, gain momentum with the country going into bankruptcy.

Has always the tories will have to come back and dish out the medicine and put right labours mess

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 4:48 pm

Using the same argument, if the tories get in we'll be defending our houses with sticks against Muslamic ray gun carrying hordes of immigrants.

Piece of **** this.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Jun 05, 2017 4:53 pm

Canterbury is a very odd one, because their prediction suggests that at the very minimum, Labour's vote will rise by 43%, and at best it will more than double; while the Conservative vote is predicted to drop even though 13.6% of the people voted UKIP last time, and UKIP aren't standing this time. I reckon they've got a glitch in the system there.

Last time it was Tory 42.9%, Labour 24.5%, UKIP 13.6%, LibDem 11.6%, Green 7%, Socialist 0.3%. The overall poll shows a 1.2% swing to Labour over the whole country, so why a 10.2% swing in Canterbury?